For some reason I can't post a picture. Here is a link to mine.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/35/juystafanentry.jpg/
-
- Juystafan
- Registered User
-
Member for 13 years and 28 days
Last active Tue, May, 22 2012 09:26:08
- 1 Follower
- 136 Total Posts
- 2 Thanks
-
Oct 2, 2011
Juystafan posted a message on Beta Key ContestPosted in: News
Uploaded with ImageShack.us -
Mar 27, 2011
Juystafan posted a message on How will set items work?Scalable Set items: This would be a pretty bad idea... I think... Mainly because this could dissuade people from trying new gear. Of course that all depends on the stats of the set items. If set items are to be scaled with character level, they should be scaled back at the very least, 1-2 tier levels so that drops during the game always have the potential of being better suited than that a particular set items attributes. I prefer the creativity be left to the players for determining the right attributes to have on equipment rather than them be pre-seleced for an entire armor/weapon set. It does too much work for the player. Hence my quote, "Set items are for lazy players, or players that are trying to get some laughs".Posted in: News
Digression:
The common, magical, rare, unique, and crafted gear in Diablo 2 was a fairly nice, simple at that. However, I like the idea of having a very few amount of rare items that have the potential to be better than some of the best Unique items. If that makes any sense. Like magical items, rare items can have varying attributes with varying additions like 20-35% block rate, or +70-150% damage. If a certain tiered rare was to be perfect, it should outshine most perfect unique items of that same tier. I understand I may be pretty vague, but thats the best way I can currently explain it using old d2 terminology. Call it an ultra-rare if you will... Because rare items have far more variations in types of attributes, the odds of landing a perfect rare with not only all the attributes you want but also perfect stats on those attributes, (i.e. 150% if the range was 70%-150%) is far more improbable than that of Uniques items with set attributes and varying stats. (By attributes I mean +Dexterity, or Item casts blizzard 5% chance on hit, or + life, etc.) (By stats i mean the %'s and numbers reflecting those attributes, like 10 dexterity, or the given %). I believe that because it is so improbable that a rare may outshine a Unique item, that Unique items will still play a primary role in the trading system. But my thought on rare's would allow for an additional, very improbable level of slight improvement from perfect unique items. I may try to work out a model using d2 items as a basis for comparison to show everyone if there is enough interest.
Back on topic: Anyways back to the question, I like set items, I do... but they take away from a lot of the mystery. Diablo 2 did practically make set items irrelevant in the end, which I liked. As a result, i believe it should be implemented in a similar way. I think sets should be treated more as a gimmick than an actually usable item to a certain degree(We wouldn't want to make them completely useless). Its stuff for fun, and I can't say no to variety. I think Diablo 2 had it about right.
Ohh and I say Nay to craftable sets..., unless they are purely gimmick or decorative items with no actual use. Then it would just be a fun economy dump.
-JuystaFan - To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
0
Nevermind.
What Daemaro said...
0
I think I used to be. So I can maybe see where they are coming from. It was hard for me to get out of the grinding aspect of getting to level 99. I wanted the same thing for Diablo 3. But I came to realize, I just need end game content. Diablo 3 will have plenty of that rest assured.
-- Rebuilding from scratch is like playing the same tower defense game over and over again.--
It gets lame...
0
Dude... there will be tons of end game content. I think it will be just as hard to get a perfect character in this game as it was to get to level 99 in D2. based on the gem and rune system's announced. Finding these things will not be easy. Plus all the gold put into vendors for upgrading. I love the gem idea. It will be rare to have the highest level gem and rune. (We'll see if the rune actually gets implemented) but still. Lets also not forget that they are toying around with the idea of a fourth difficulty... I don't know if that's been announced yet officially. But it has been rumored at least.
0
0
Honestly I like being able to respec as often as I want as long as I pay for it. It's a gold dump too which helps prevent the inflation that will inevitably occur.
We have to account for patches that alter skills as well. What if you are already level 60 and there is a patch that alters almost every skill. This creates several new combination of skills that may work more effectively than before! a single respec at that point would be bad news...
0
It's most likely equivalent to a normal death, just in a more extravagant way. If your resurrected, your head reattaches. That's my assumption.
0
0
Anyways, I fixed the link.
0
The way it works now, if you are dead when a boss is killed you will miss out on experience and loot. We want to make sure the design isn't such that it becomes a standard for high-level characters to carry low-level characters through content, without risk of penalty should the lowbie die. But, there is a new resurrection mechanic which allows other players in the party to click on a dead player's corpse to bring them back on the spot, rather than having them be sent back to town.
We'll see how gameplay elements such as these play out in the beta test and adjust accordingly if necessary.
According to this blue post. There is a mechanic that is being tinkered with to allow players to resurrect other players on the spot. I think this is a very cool mechanic and would be used a lot, no doubt about it. However, my concern is this:
Lets assume that during a boss fight, your able to resurrect someone and lets also assume, that just because you resurrected him, both of you were able to finish off the boss, other wise you both would be dead.
That said, the blue post doesn't mention how many times you can resurrect someone. I assume once... again its a mechanic that will be tested out in the beta. I feel like it may give too big of an advantage in the midst of battle... However, I do understand that if a player dies, the corpse will probably be really close to the boss or in the middle of the fray of monsters. The risk a player has to take to resurrect another player that is flooded with monsters or being attacked by a boss, would make resurrecting a tough decision. The resurrect may not be an instant touch either.
I'm just interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.
1)Do you think its a good mechanic?
2)Would you rather be able to get the drops after death than have to deal with this mechanic?
3)Should it have a cool down?
4)Should it take seconds to cast or should it be an instance cast? If so, how many seconds?
5)Do you think it would actually give any sort of advantage given whats stated above?
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Juystafan
(I don't know how to post full blue posts, so click the link above to see the forum) - Maybe someone can tell me how?
According to this blue post. There is a mechanic that is being tinkered with to allow players to resurrect other players on the spot. I think this is a very cool mechanic and would be used a lot, no doubt about it. However, my concern is this:
Lets assume that during a boss fight, your able to resurrect someone and lets also assume, that just because you resurrected him, both of you were able to finish off the boss, other wise you both would be dead.
That said, the blue post doesn't mention how many times you can resurrect someone. I assume once... again its a mechanic that will be tested out in the beta. I feel like it may give too big of an advantage in the midst of battle... However, I do understand that if a player dies, the corpse will probably be really close to the boss or in the middle of the fray of monsters. The risk a player has to take to resurrect another player that is flooded with monsters or being attacked by a boss, would make resurrecting a tough decision. The resurrect may not be an instant touch either.
I'm just interested in hearing what everyone else thinks.
1)Do you think its a good mechanic?
2)Would you rather be able to get the drops after death than have to deal with this mechanic?
3)Should it have a cool down?
4)Should it take seconds to cast or should it be an instance cast? If so, how many seconds?
5)Do you think it would actually give any sort of advantage given whats stated above?
Let me know what you think.
Cheers,
Juystafan
0
0
I love that they added a 4th difficulty that will add replay value to the early acts. This will certainly add a lot of playtime to the game... The question I have... is did Blizzard factor in the 4th difficulty into their estimated game play time? if so... each difficulty will actually be shorter(maybe) than the difficulties in D2.
Let me know what you think.
0
even then we would not be sure...
0
That, I'm not actually 100% sure about... That would be the smart thing to do though... Anyone know if they have done this in the past?
0
ohh... I must be behind and misunderstood something I read... lol
im dumb...
/ignore me...
0
With Focus, :
Lets assume Focus operates like energy/stamina did for rogues in ShadowBane, Ultima Online, or WoW. 100/100 focus to start out with.
So a Wizard starts out with 100 focus. Any spells we would classify as regular or normal would cost focus of under 100 so that they may be consistently cast.
Now here are the true workings behind focus. As battle lengthens, each spell you casts gives the character a # of additional Maximum focus for a set amount of time up to a certain limit. (Think of it as if it were adrenaline for Barbarians as a battle becomes more dangerous or longer, except apply it to Wizards). The Key word here is maximum. For example, a single cast of iceblast cost 20 focus could increase maximum focus by 3 for 30 seconds(Focus Status: 80/103. Focus has a regeneration speed. As a result four casts of iceblast would give 12 additional maximum focus increase your maximum focus to 112. (Focus Status: 20/112) Now lets assume Focus regenerates fully. (Focus status: 112/112) The Wizard would now be allowed to cast a higher tier level spell that may cost 110 focus to cast. For example, the spell Blizzard costs 110 focus. (Focus Status:3/112) I think this type of system would be perfect for wizards as it would replace the cooldown strategy blizzard has in place to force strategic use of spells just as monks have to pull off their combo's.
Now the only issue I see here, is that PvP players will complain and feel limited in a PvP battle because they cannot cast their most powerful spells immediately with only 100/100 focus. This can be rectified by increasing the maximum focus allotted at the start of a PvP battle (Focus: 130/130) so Wizard PvPer's will be happy. That said, I don't want to hear any PvP complaints.
Let me know what you think please.
I haven't thought far enough ahead to apply this sort of solution to every class, so I know cool downs may still be used in other classes... But this is just my Wizard fix...
Cheers,
Juystafan